Skip to main content

Multiple Signatures in Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)
RFC 5752

Yes

(Russ Housley)
(Tim Polk)

No Objection

Lars Eggert
(Chris Newman)
(Cullen Jennings)
(Dan Romascanu)
(Jon Peterson)
(Lisa Dusseault)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Mark Townsley)
(Ron Bonica)
(Ross Callon)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.

Lars Eggert No Objection

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (2008-05-22)
The document says:

  If both SignerInfo objects are
  not present, the relying party can easily determine that another
  SignerInfo has been removed.

My english may not be perfect, but doesn't "both X are not present" mean that there are no Xs at all in the message? Consider writing this as "If either SignerInfo object is missing, the relaying party ..."

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()

                            

(Tim Polk; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()

                            

(Chris Newman; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Cullen Jennings; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2008-05-22)

                            

(Jon Peterson; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Lisa Dusseault; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Mark Townsley; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Pasi Eronen; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2008-05-22)
I found this document quite difficult to understand -- I'd suggest
doing some editorial work especially in Section 3 (the last bullet
before the example), Section 4.6, and Section 5.

Section 7: for future reference, it wouldn't hurt to say how the OIDs
have been assigned (and this information shouldn't be removed by the
RFC editor).

In OIDs, both spellings "pkcs9(9)" and "pkcs-9(9)" are used.

[PROFILE] should point to RFC5280, unless the reference to 3280
is intentional (if it is, a short explanation would be useful).

Section 3: the last two lines should probably have one more level 
of indentation?

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Ross Callon; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()